NationStates Jolt Archive

That's correct. If Cesare Borgia were running for President today, I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. He is the physical embodiment of a logical ruler.

http://www.italica.rai.it/rinascimento/iconografia/img/melone01.jpg

That's correct. If Cesare Borgia were running for President today, I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. He is the physical embodiment of a logical ruler.

http://www.italica.rai.it/rinascimento/iconografia/img/melone01.jpg

You could iron shirts on his face. :p

That's correct. If Cesare Borgia were running for President today, I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. He is the physical embodiment of a logical ruler.

In what way?

In what way?

I find fault with fewer of his actions then anyone else's. He actually used his brain and figured-out logical solutions.

You could iron shirts on his face. :p

I'd vote for that.

I'm not sure I'd fancy someone who appears to have been willing to achieve his goals through any means necessary, regardless of who gets harmed. Cesare Borgia was far too ruthless for my liking, much like his father - but at least he doesn't seem to have been as corrupt.

If Cesare Borgia was president now, I could see him supporting things like unwarranted spying, rendition and torture to achieve what he thinks is right which is unacceptable to me.

That's correct. If Cesare Borgia were running for President today, I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. He is the physical embodiment of a logical ruler.

We are the Borgia, resistance is futile? :p

I'm not sure I'd fancy someone who appears to have been willing to achieve his goals through any means necessary, regardless of who gets harmed. Cesare Borgia was far too ruthless for my liking, much like his father - but at least he doesn't seem to have been as corrupt.

His father was easily the best Pope of his time. The two previous Popes did the following things: have someone assassinated while at the alter of Jesus; raise Indulgences to support a large quantity of bastards; let murders go free because they paid-up; along with other heinous crimes. And although Borgia rewarded those who voted him power, he was the only Pope for a while who had absolutely no-proof against him that directly indicated bribing. He also didn't allow criminals to pay Indulgences to wave punishment. Get with it!

If Cesare Borgia was president now, I could see him supporting things like unwarranted spying, rendition and torture to achieve what he thinks is right which is unacceptable to me.

Cesare lowered taxes and banned pillaging. True, he killed a many people. But just about all of them had either tried to kill him, or were threats to stability. He was genuinely loved by his people at the time. And the King of Naples who wrote the most against him kept mummies in a museum of all the people he killed. Really now.

That's correct. If Cesare Borgia were running for President today, I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. He is the physical embodiment of a logical ruler.

http://www.italica.rai.it/rinascimento/iconografia/img/melone01.jpg

'Logic' alone is not necessarily a value one wants in a leader.

'Logically', killing voices of dissent is good. 'Logically', forced labour and all manners of slavery are good. 'Logically', rape is good. 'Logically' a mandatory religion is best.

Logic - in isolation - is a pretty poor tool for government.

'Logic' alone is not necessarily a value one wants in a leader.

Why not? It's the only important quality for ruling in my opinion.

'Logically', killing voices of dissent is good.

No it isn't It's a waist of time and money. It also pisses-off the populace and lower production.

'Logically', forced labor and all manners of slavery are good.

No they aren't. They ruin the economy, and damage industry. See Rome and the South.

'Logically', rape is good.

You're going to have to explain to me how you reasoned that one.

'Logically' a mandatory religion is best.

Not in the least. Mandatory religion is enforced opinion and is an obstacle to truth. Logical people want to know the truth. It would mean that we know the truth, which we don't. We still need to find it.

Logic - in isolation - is a pretty poor tool for government.

It's the only tool needed.

'Logically', killing voices of dissent is good. 'Logically', forced labour and all manners of slavery are good. 'Logically', rape is good. 'Logically' a mandatory religion is best.What idea of logic do you have? Logic does in no way automatically make slavery or forced labor a good thing.

What idea of logic do you have? Logic does in no way automatically make slavery or forced labor a good thing.

Indeed.

I find fault with fewer of his actions then anyone else's. He actually used his brain and figured-out logical solutions.

If its all about logic, how about Marcus Aurelius for president. Though, Diocletian might be more fitting to America's current situation. :rolleyes:

Blueblood;13111232']If its all about logic, how about Marcus Aurelius for president.

Possibly. But he seems too intellectual, and not action-oriented enough.

His father was easily the best Pope of his time. The two previous Popes did the following things: have someone assassinated while at the alter of Jesus; raise Indulgences to support a large quantity of bastards; let murders go free because they paid-up; along with other heinous crimes. And although Borgia rewarded those who voted him power, he was the only Pope for a while who had absolutely no-proof against him that directly indicated bribing. He also didn't allow criminals to pay Indulgences to wave punishment. Get with it!

Pope Alexander VI was quite possibly the most dangerous and corrupt pope in history. Despite being elected Pope (through bribery, as was the custom of the time, but don't pretend he had some moral objection to the practice) he then proceeded to wage a vast series of wars for his own personal gain, seizing the land and wealth of his own subjects to fund his agenda before having them imprisoned or executed on false charges. He lived in utter decadence while in the streets of Rome crime ran rampant - I find it very amusing that you should mention that he did not accept indulgencies for criminals when Rome was widely known as a haven for criminals at the time, where theft and murder could be carried out without fear of retribution! He practiced nepotism, elevating Cesare to the rank of cardinal when he was still a teenager. Furthermore, as someone who is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ, he engaged in acts of vice that make the Marquis de Sade look like a Puritan, not acts the head of the church should be engaging in. Despite your apparent love of logic, you seem to think that a man who used his role as head of a state to fuel his personal ambitions and engaged in widespread corruption and nepotism is a good ruler - I'd say he was the Rennaissance equivalent of Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il.

Cesare lowered taxes and banned pillaging. True, he killed a many people. But just about all of them had either tried to kill him, or were threats to stability. He was genuinely loved by his people at the time. And the King of Naples who wrote the most against him kept mummies in a museum of all the people he killed. Really now.

And yet, despite all those who so apparently loved him, as soon as his father died the territories he had spent so long conquering fell into disarray and rebellion. Not to mention he was not above personally executing supposed criminals for his own pleasure. Without papal backing, Cesare Borgia was a completely useless leader.

Pope Alexander VI was quite possibly the most dangerous and corrupt pope in history.

Have you read about his successors, predecessors?

Despite being elected Pope (through bribery, as was the custom of the time, but don't pretend he had some moral objection to the practice)

Once again there is no-proof he bribed anybody. Although he probably did, all his competitors were doing it so he had no choice. He was practically universally hoped-for.

he then proceeded to wage a vast series of wars for his own personal gain,

Every person he fought had set-themselves-up as personal Duke on part of the Churches property and were hogging taxes.

seizing the land and wealth of his own subjects to fund his agenda before having them imprisoned or executed on false charges.

Whoa, ho-ho! Bullshit! He treated his subjects very well. He sized land from his enemies, and was a lot nicer then them. Once again the Borgias banned pillaging, and were quite humane for the time.

He lived in utter decadence while in the streets of Rome crime ran rampant -

No nearly as much as his predecessors.

I find it very amusing that you should mention that he did not accept indulgencies for criminals when Rome was widely known as a haven for criminals at the time, where theft and murder could be carried out without fear of retribution!

His first act as Pope was to hang two criminals who had been let-off by the previous Pope because they paid indulgences. HE had their bodies hanged-up in front of their burned houses, and said the rest goes for all criminals who try to get-off by bribing the church.

He practiced nepotism, elevating Cesare to the rank of cardinal when he was still a teenager.

So? What Pope of the time wouldn't do such a thing?

Furthermore, as someone who is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ, he engaged in acts of vice that make the Marquis de Sade look like a Puritan, not acts the head of the church should be engaging in.

If you're referring to sexual acts, I might point-out that all Popes of the period did such things.

Despite your apparent love of logic, you seem to think that a man who used his role as head of a state to fuel his personal ambitions and engaged in widespread corruption and nepotism is a good ruler - I'd say he was the Renaissance equivalent of Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il.

I think you are mistaken. He improved the economy stopped crime, and banned pillaging, paying his men from his own pocket.

And yet, despite all those who so apparently loved him, as soon as his father died the territories he had spent so long conquering fell into disarray and rebellion. Not to mention he was not above personally executing supposed criminals for his own pleasure. Without papal backing, Cesare Borgia was a completely useless leader.

He saw ahead. Cesare was under a sickness when his dad died. He couldn't move for two weeks, even though he had a plan set-out. He was then directly betrayed by a new Pope who lied about him, and worked with the Spanish to screw him. under the new Pope, Italy was pillaged and ruined. Rome was burned. Italy lost its independence. The Borgias kept order.

He practiced nepotism, elevating Cesare to the rank of cardinal when he was still a teenager.
The Pope invented nepotism. Of course he practiced it.

That's correct. If Cesare Borgia were running for President today, I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. He is the physical embodiment of a logical ruler.

http://www.italica.rai.it/rinascimento/iconografia/img/melone01.jpg

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but you must be a native born citizen of the United States in order to be eligible for the office of President and Signore Borgia was not born anywhere near North America.

Why not? It's the only important quality for ruling in my opinion.


Your opinion is like everyone else's. Diverting. Amusing. Worth something to yourself, and about the value of the apper it is written on to everyone else.


No it isn't It's a waist of time and money. It also pisses-off the populace and lower production.


Not at all. Dissent is destructive. Dissent also spreads. The only way to ENSURE the removal of dissent, is to ensure the removal of dissenters. And the only way to ensure the removal of dissenters, is to revoke their existence.


No they aren't. They ruin the economy, and damage industry. See Rome and the South.


Or Rome. Or Greece. Sparta is a good example of slavery ruining the economy, wouldn't you say?


You're going to have to explain to me how you reasoned that one.


Propogation of one's 'kind' is good. By any means necessary, if we apply logic. Thus, logically, rape is good.


Not in the least. Mandatory religion is enforced opinion and is an obstacle to truth. Logical people want to know the truth. It would mean that we know the truth, which we don't. We still need to find it.


That's all irrelevent. Again, we come back to dissent. And friction. And conflict. The only way to quash such problems is to stamp them out. Logically, we should all believe the same thing, and it should be a religion rather than a lack-of-religion. (The rationale for THAT should be obvious).


It's the only tool needed.

For you. History suggests that it is patently obvious neither the only tool needed... nor even A tool that is needed.

What idea of logic do you have? Logic does in no way automatically make slavery or forced labor a good thing.

Of course it does. Maximum output for minimum input is logically optimal.

Yeah sure, people might not LIKE it - especially them uppity slaves - but that's their problem. If they appreciated 'logic' enough, they'd quit their bitching.

Sorry to burst your bubble here, but you must be a native born citizen of the United States in order to be eligible for the office of President and Signore Borgia was not born anywhere near North America.

True... until the Prezinator storms the Oval Office.

Your opinion is like everyone else's. Diverting. Amusing. Worth something to yourself, and about the value of the apper it is written on to everyone else.

Logical.

Not at all. Dissent is destructive. Dissent also spreads. The only way to ENSURE the removal of dissent, is to ensure the removal of dissenters. And the only way to ensure the removal of dissenters, is to revoke their existence.

If by dissent you mean criminals, I agree. If by dissent you mean big mouthes I disagree. If you kill dissenters you are only going to cause rebellion. What's more is their opinions may be more logical then yours. Dissension against illogic is never bad. Furthermore, the cost to stop dissension is far, far more damaging then the distention itself.


Or Rome. Or Greece. Sparta is a good example of slavery ruining the economy, wouldn't you say?


Sparta was a small city, not a nation like the U.S. Also, if there was a Greek state that banned slavery, I'm sure it would take a while, but soon they'd outsource Sparta.

Propogation of one's 'kind' is good. By any means necessary, if we apply logic. Thus, logically, rape is good.

Actually we have too-many people consuming resources as it is.

That's all irrelevent. Again, we come back to dissent. And friction. And conflict. The only way to quash such problems is to stamp them out. Logically, we should all believe the same thing, and it should be a religion rather than a lack-of-religion. (The rationale for THAT should be obvious).

History has proven that attempting to stamp-out opposing religions just causes terrorism, and the "stamp-out" is a very costly and unnecessary form of dissent itself.

For you. History suggests that it is patently obvious neither the only tool needed... nor even A tool that is needed.

I require examples.

Of course it does. Maximum output for minimum input is logically optimal.


Yeah sure, people might not LIKE it - especially them uppity slaves - but that's their problem. If they appreciated 'logic' enough, they'd quit their bitching.


Slaves take away jobs from the citizen.

Slaves take away jobs from the citizen.

Do your homework, or just remain silent. Either works for me.

Clue: I mentioned it already. Look at Sparta.

If by dissent you mean big mouthes I disagree. If you kill dissenters you are only going to cause rebellion.


How?

Who is going to rebel, kittens?


What's more is their opinions may be more logical then yours.


How can they be, if we rule by logic?


Actually we have too-many people consuming resources as it is.


Then, logically, we need to lose some. Sell them, or kill them, right?

Have you read about his successors, predecessors?

Indeed, the papacy of the time was rife with corruption - its no surprise that Lutheranism was formed around this time in response to the corruption of the papacy - but Alexander VI stands out far and above both his predecessors and those who followed him for what can only be described as the most stunning displays of decadence and debauchery by any pope, ever.

Once again there is no-proof he bribed anybody. Although he probably did, all his competitors were doing it so he had no choice. He was practically universally hoped-for.

No proof? One has to only look at the lavish gifts of land and titles he awarded to the cardinals who elected him for proof of his corruption. I'm not saying his competitors didn't try the same, but I must ask you to stop pretending it didn't happen.

Every person he fought had set-themselves-up as personal Duke on part of the Churches property and were hogging taxes.

Whoa, ho-ho! Bullshit! He treated his subjects very well. He sized land from his enemies, and was a lot nicer then them. Once again the Borgias banned pillaging, and were quite humane for the time.

Actually, as described in contemporary accounts such as those of the Pope's Master of Ceremonies and the Venetian ambassador the seizure of property was based on the need to fund his own campaigns, leading to seizures of land from various nobles and bishops - including the pope's own secretary - many of whom were put there by the pope in the first place, rather than people who 'set themselves up'. Now, having showed you the sources of my views on the matter, perhaps you have some contemporary historical sources to counter my points that you would like to share with us?


His first act as Pope was to hang two criminals who had been let-off by the previous Pope because they paid indulgences. HE had their bodies hanged-up in front of their burned houses, and said the rest goes for all criminals who try to get-off by bribing the church.

Yes, he did indeed make a great show of severely punishing criminals at the start of his reign and on further occasion throughtout. However, maintenance of order was certainly not his strong suit, as contemporary sources agree that Rome during the reign of Alexander was a time of rampant crime. Perhaps you can enlighten me by showing a source which suggests that Rome was in fact orderly - and I'm not talking about show executions, I mean an actual sense of low crime.

So? What Pope of the time wouldn't do such a thing?

If you're referring to sexual acts, I might point-out that all Popes of the period did such things.

And yet, of all the popes of his time, Alexander stands out head and shoulders above the rest for his acts. Sure, other popes also practiced nepotism and had mistresses - but none so damaging and outrageous as Alexander.

I think you are mistaken. He improved the economy stopped crime, and banned pillaging, paying his men from his own pocket.

Are we even talking about the same Alexander VI? As I have consistently pointed out, far from improving the economy Alexander consistently had to seize land from various people to fund his own wars and extravagancies and crime was completely rampant. Once more, I challenge you to show me some sort of historical source which suggests that the pope only seized the lands of nasty people, or that Rome was orderly and just during his reign.

He saw ahead. Cesare was under a sickness when his dad died. He couldn't move for two weeks, even though he had a plan set-out. He was then directly betrayed by a new Pope who lied about him, and worked with the Spanish to screw him. under the new Pope, Italy was pillaged and ruined. Rome was burned. Italy lost its independence. The Borgias kept order.

But surely if the people all loved Cesare Borgia - as you claim - they would have done something to support him in the three months between his fathers death and the rise of a hostile pope - indeed, there was even time in between for him to secure the ascendancy of a friendly pope in the short lived Pius III!

I'm completely confused by your claim that under Julius II "Italy was pillaged and ruined, Rome was burned, Italy lost its independence". Italy was invaded and pillaged by the French under Alexander VI reign and both popes fought various wars to force them out of Italy - in fact, it was Alexander who gave permission for the French to enter Italy in the first place in order to attack Naples! Meanwhile, you claim that Rome burned under Julius II, when in fact Rome never fell to an invading army during his papacy, while during Alexander's time Rome was occupied by the French army while marching South. You ask about wether I have read about the other popes of the time, and yet you seem to get some of the most basic facts about the time wildly incorrect - perhaps I should be the one asking wether you have read up on this subject.

Indeed, the papacy of the time was rife with corruption - its no surprise that Lutheranism was formed around this time in response to the corruption of the papacy - but Alexander VI stands out far and above both his predecessors and those who followed him for what can only be described as the most stunning displays of decadence and debauchery by any pope, ever.

Source? Roderigo Borgia was certainly decadent. But how so was more then other Popes?

No proof? One has to only look at the lavish gifts of land and titles he awarded to the cardinals who elected him for proof of his corruption. I'm not saying his competitors didn't try the same, but I must ask you to stop pretending it didn't happen.

I know Alex bribed people. I'm just saying that there was less proof against him then any other Pope of the time, so it's ironic how that stands-out. Rewarding those who voted for you was a common practice of the time, and was not considered bribing unless the reward was promised in advance.

Actually, as described in contemporary accounts such as those of the Pope's Master of Ceremonies

You're referring to Burchard? Yes, I consider him a reliable source.

and the Venetian ambassador
This fellow was a professional slanderer.


The seizure of property was based on the need to fund his own campaigns, leading to seizures of land from various nobles and bishops - including the pope's own secretary

Which one?

- many of whom were put there by the pope in the first place, rather than people who 'set themselves up'.

Incorrect.

Now, having showed you the sources of my views on the matter, perhaps you have some contemporary historical sources to counter my points that you would like to share with us?

I cite Machiavelli and Burchard as my general sources concerning the Borgias.


Yes, he did indeed make a great show of severely punishing criminals at the start of his reign and on further occasion throughtout.

Just so.

However, maintenance of order was certainly not his strong suit,

Name a Pope of the time who was better at it.

as contemporary sources agree that Rome during the reign of Alexander was a time of rampant crime. Perhaps you can enlighten me by showing a source which suggests that Rome was in fact orderly - and I'm not talking about show executions, I mean an actual sense of low crime.


It was more orderly in during the Borgias reign, then any other adjacent reigns. "Showy executions" are far superior to the general practice of indulgences.


And yet, of all the popes of his time, Alexander stands out head and shoulders above the rest for his acts. Sure, other popes also practiced nepotism and had mistresses - but none so damaging and outrageous as Alexander.


Mistresses certainly aren't a good thing for a Pope, but they don't affect how good of a ruler you are.

Are we even talking about the same Alexander VI?

No. At this point you apparently changed the subject back to lil' Cesare.

As I have consistently pointed out, far from improving the economy Alexander consistently had to seize land from various people to fund his own wars and extravagances and crime was completely rampant.

As I have constantly pointed out, no matter how bad you consider Alex, other Pope of the period did the same things but worse.

Once more, I challenge you to show me some sort of historical source which suggests that the pope only seized the lands of nasty people, or that Rome was orderly and just during his reign.

Machiavelli states clearly that Borgais were excellent in these areas. And he wasn't biased. He wasn't on the Borgia payroll. In fact Florence was against the Borgias (indirectly of course) and Cesare personally thought Machiavelli annoying.

But surely if the people all loved Cesare Borgia - as you claim - they would have done something to support him in the three months between his fathers death and the rise of a hostile pope

Fear is stronger then love.

- indeed, there was even time in between for him to secure the ascendancy of a friendly pope in the short lived Pius III!

He was sick the whole period.

I'm completely confused by your claim that under Julius II "Italy was pillaged and ruined, Rome was burned, Italy lost its independence". Italy was invaded and pillaged by the French under Alexander VI reign and both popes fought various wars to force them out of Italy - in fact, it was Alexander who gave permission for the French to enter Italy in the first place in order to attack Naples! Meanwhile, you claim that Rome burned under Julius II, when in fact Rome never fell to an invading army during his papacy, while during Alexander's time Rome was occupied by the French army while marching South. You ask about whether I have read about the other popes of the time, and yet you seem to get some of the most basic facts about the time wildly incorrect - perhaps I should be the one asking whether you have read up on this subject.

I will state that Borgia successfully repelled the French without significant damage to Italy...a credit to him.

As recommended reading: The Life of Cesare Borgia, by Rafael Sabatini. It makes an excellent case for the Borgias and cites many references. Since I don't expect you to go out and buy this book, I have provided a link where you can read it for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=3432&pageno=7

If you find it interesting, then I highly recommend Banner of the Bull by the same author.

Do your homework, or just remain silent. Either works for me.

Clue: I mentioned it already. Look at Sparta.

Sparta would have been superior without slaves. I practically guarantee it.

How?

Who is going to rebel, kittens?

By people who don't appreciate dissenters being killed, which would be a good portion of the population.

How can they be, if we rule by logic?


One can never been certain.

Then, logically, we need to lose some. Sell them, or kill them, right?

Kill detrimental members, such as drug-dealers and other criminals. Let the Boons live.

Sparta would have been superior without slaves. I practically guarantee it.

You guarantee it, huh?

How could you guarantee it?

You guarantee it, huh?

How could you guarantee it?

Because I've studied the effects of slaves in history, and nations who emancipated them. The freeing of slaves does temporarily make a nation the under-dog, but then it quickly gains dominance.

The biggest example there is available is the American Civil War. The Confederacy frequently fought the battles superior to the Union, generally losing fewer troops. However, their economy was greatly restricted due to its dependence on slaves. Why? I'll tell you: with so many slaves they wouldn't use more expensive machines, which were obviously superior; next, importing all those slaves is nasty problem: it makes it so the citizens of the nation aren't paid (because they can't get the jobs), and thus money is less-spent, and taxes aren't collected as much. If you question this, just look at how the South got beaten.

Another point: Sparta was once again not nearly as big as America, and it's economy wasn't that good. They didn't even allow foreign traders to buy, or sell there. They were eventually dominated by Rome. Rome eventually had economic problems due to imported slaves. It caused a loss of jobs. The slave-owners could charge lower then the small farmer. The small farmer then had to borrow. Failure to pay back a loan meant enslavement, and thus the economy imploded.

By people who don't appreciate dissenters being killed, which would be a good portion of the population.


People tend to be pretty passive, actually... once word of the secret police gets around.

People tend to be pretty passive, actually... once word of the secret police gets around.

I think not. Revolution begins then. USSR you say? It looks like they fared fairly poor against the U.S. in the cold war. Secret police seem to work, but actually they lower enthusiasm, and thus, production.

True... until the Prezinator storms the Oval Office.

But...what if a pretzel was in his way? :p

Sparta would have been superior without slaves. I practically guarantee it.
Without slavery the Spartans would have either starved or been forced to abandon their eugenics program and mandatory military service (it is hard to maintain agriculture when every male between the ages of 7 and 30 is required to spend all their time practicing to stab other people in the face).

Without slavery the Spartans would have either starved or been forced to abandon their eugenics program and mandatory military service (it is hard to maintain agriculture when every male between the ages of 7 and 30 is required to spend all their time practicing to stab other people in the face).

Sir, I'm afraid you do not know what you're talking about. Plenty of Spartans that were to become soldiers were rejected, and filled many other positions (even though non-soldiers couldn't vote). Also, I might point out an excellent point Machiavelli makes in isDiscourses: that Sparta could never expand into a truly large empire like Rome, because they wouldn't incorporate their conquered peoples. Look at Alexander: his empire was much larger then Sparta;s because he incorporated conquered peoples, and thus, gained a non-military labor pool.

So if Sparta used a non-slave labor pool, they would have been better-off.

That's correct. If Cesare Borgia were running for President today, I'd vote for him in a heart-beat. He is the physical embodiment of a logical ruler.


Also, he was one who most closely embodied Machiavelli's Prince. "It is best to be both feared and loved, however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved."

Also, he was one who most closely embodied Machiavelli's Prince. "It is best to be both feared and loved, however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved."

Ah, but not hated. Anyway, Machiavelli never said both feared and love. He said respected, whihc is a brand of fear. You can't choose whether. or not someone will love you. You can, however, choose whether, or not they fear you.